Talk:SCP Foundation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Circus of the Disquieting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Circus of the Disquieting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Circus of the Disquieting until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Ambrose Restaurants" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ambrose Restaurants has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Ambrose Restaurants until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Anderson Robotics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anderson Robotics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Anderson Robotics until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Marshall, Carter, and Dark" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Marshall, Carter, and Dark has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Marshall, Carter, and Dark until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Wondertainment Industries" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wondertainment Industries has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Wondertainment Industries until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Dr. Wondertainment" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dr. Wondertainment has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Dr. Wondertainment until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Scp-055

Scp-055 is the Anti-meme or the self keeping secret sine it has the ability to make everyone forget it exists and no one remembers what it really is. 98.17.210.166 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's what the article says, pretty much. What of it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

May I help translate this page to Estonian?

I was wondering if I could translate this page for my fellow Estonian speakers, who aren't fluent in English. MisterFromEstonia (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@MisterFromEstonia, welcome to Wikipedia! Almost certainly yes (unless Estonian WP has some rule against it, which seems unlikely), but as with everything else around here, there are rules etc. Start with reading Wikipedia:Translate us and take it from there. Since you intend to edit Estonian WP, you have to seek advice and guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary refs in the Examples of SCPs section

I see someone has again added primary refs, scp-wiki.wikidot.com/, to all the items in the Examples of SCPs section. These are unnecessary per the WP-pov, edges into WP:FANCRUFT and just clutter in the ref-section, article already links to the scp website. Any objection to removing them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not fancruft. That's like saying the content of a book is fancruft, in the article dedicated to that book. scp-wiki.wikidot.com is where all of those SCPs are written and originate from. Germanater09 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And in a WP-article on a book, that book is rarely used as source, outside MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Here, they're just slightly promo-ish clutter. The reason these examples are here is that there is a decent independent ref to use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

SCP-096

SCP-096 is also a well known SCP. Add it to the page. Villager3222 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP-philosophy like WP:PROPORTION, the Examples of SCP section will only include SCP:s that independent (of https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/, author, publisher etc) WP:RS has bothered to notice and write something about, you can see examples of references in that section. No blogs, wikis, social media, etc, etc etc. So, what have you got? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious, why can't the source be https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/? I mean, that's literally where the SCP Foundation and all the SCPs are written. That's the most reliable source in this case. Germanater09 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Because we're largely here to summarize independent WP:RS. If no independent WP:RS bothered to write about SCP-096, WP won't either. The reason there is a WP-article about the SCP Foundation is that independent WP:RS did bother to write about it (WP:GNG).

But the internet is vast, and there are other places to write about SCP-096. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Not allowing the use of scp-wiki.wikidot.com is honestly ridiculous.

scp-wiki.wikidot.com is the official SCP site, where all of the SCPs, tales, GoIs, etc. are written, greenlit, and published. It is as reliable of a source about the SCP Foundation as you can get. Germanater09 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of reliability here ('factual accuracy' isn't relevant here as this is all made up) but of notability, which is a function of external attention. There's tons of stuff about GAW and Ambrose Restaurants on the Wikidot site, but where is there anything to support real-world interest? DS (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In WP-lingo, the question falls more under WP:NPOV than WP:N, in the sense that notability is about if there should be an article at all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In WP-land, it's a WP:SPS WP:ABOUTSELF source, with very limited use beyond WP:EL. The point of a WP-article is to try to summarize independent WP:RS. If you want to read scp-wiki.wikidot.com, read scp-wiki.wikidot.com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2023

Change "SCP-087 (2012) is a (...)" to "SCP-087-B (2012) is a (...)" under "Video games" subheading (incorrect name, see: https://www.scpcbgame.com/scp-087-b.html) Drewskiac (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done, but I used this citation instead because it contained the 2012 release date.

References

Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 11:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Phrasing question

In the phrase "new articles are frequently written by contributors," what is the intended meaning? Compare: 1. new articles are frequently written by contributors. 2. new articles are written frequently by contributors.

The latter, I think, indicates that articles happen frequently, and that they are (all) written by contributors. The former (and current phrasing) feels more like it's claiming something about the authorship: the new articles are most frequently written by contributors, but some are written by people who aren't contributors.

As the latter concept makes no sense to me (but might be the case; I'm not heavily involved with the site), it seems like it should be rephrased to "written frequently," but I don't want to take that step myself in case I'm simply out of touch with the way the terms relate to that site. Kilyle (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. It's not possible that only some of the articles are written by contributors, as by publishing an article the author is contributing. I'll make the change. -- KomradeKalashnikov (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the new phrasing, but if we want to get real technical about it, people who have been banned from contributing would probably not be considered contributors anymore. For example, Max Landis wrote an SCP once, but then got banned over... well, I guess I'll have to describe it as "allegations". Does he count as a contributor? (Note: the article in question is widely considered to be a low quality relic of a time on the site when the standards were lower... does that change your answer?)

Food for thought. casualdejekyll 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree, people who have been banned cannot contribute new works or edits, but they are still considered contributors because their work is still hosted on the site, and their names are maintained in attribution records. aismallard (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Update on the Confinement situation

the animated series "Confinement" mentioned in the article has been voluntarily canceled due to a scandal with its creator. Instead of the eight episode, its creator published a pornographic animation of the main character and subsequently deleted all episodes. 109.118.91.179 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I decided to keep the mention to a simple "was" (an animated series), as I felt diving into or even mentioning the bizarre and complicated controversies involved with Confinement is irrelevant for most people, and should probably be kept to Reddit and YouTube. Thankfully there were multiple YouTube accounts who archived the series before deletion, so people can check out the original content in the first reference (SCP Confinement Archive). Silverleaf81 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

please I have an idea to add 197.184.181.83 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you want to write SCP-fiction, you're on the wrong website. Try https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/. Or your blog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

A source

There's an article in Case Western Reserve Law Review about the Foundation as a case study for problems with the concept of Creative Commons - in particular, the Duksin mess. Anyone feel like extracting details? DS (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove the efit ban pls

I want to help out but i cant:( 2601:846:600:22C0:E476:67A4:6F63:5C0D (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Create an account and make constructive edits on other articles to unlock semi-protected articles like this one. Page protection is there to deter vandals. Legowerewolf (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@2601:846:600:22C0:E476:67A4:6F63:5C0D: Alternatively, you can request the changes you want here, and another editor can add them if they've suitable. ― novov (t c) 23:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we add 166?

We do need to fix 108 Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Or 049 Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither one has any external (i.e., non-Wikidot) sources. So... no. DS (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

okay but what does have non site links?

possible 682 343 Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ding* we could use a news source like i.e CBS news i am currently looking into it

2601:846:600:22C0:3972:C017:2BEF:DE0B (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove SCP-108?

I do not think that the inclusion of SCP-108 in the list of "Examples of SCPs" is appropriate. I have a COI, or else I would boldly remove it myself, but I figure this list is controversial enough that a Talk page discussion is probably worth it anyway.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. It does not seem to provide any information to the reader that is useful for an encyclopedia article.
   • What purpose does including it serve? It's not an especially famous SCP, there's already an over-abundance of Series I SCPs in the list, and I don't know what information the reader gains about the SCP Foundation as a whole that isn't covered by the inclusion of the other SCPs on the list, all of which are either vastly more popular or in some way educational to mention to the reader.
   • More broadly, and this is probably too complex an issue to be covered here: do we even need the list in the first place? Would it make more sense to include specific SCP examples in the prose when they are illustrative of specific facts/claims?
     • If the list was removed, SCP-108 wouldn't be useful to mention, I don't think. Which is, somewhat paradoxically, a reason it should not be included in the list, in my opinion.
2. It is mentioned briefly in one sentence of one cited source
   • The entire mention consists of the sentence "There's the woman with a full Nazi German war bunker somehow contained within her nose." It isn't even called SCP-108 in the source, that designation is included in the article per WP:SKYISBLUE.
3. SCP-008, SCP-033, SCP-049, SCP-053, SCP-093, SCP-096, SCP-106, SCP-131, SCP-145, SCP-231, SCP-370, SCP-701, SCP-1730, SCP-1733, SCP-1756, SCP-1981, SCP-2316, SCP-3001, S. D. Locke's SCP-001, and SCP-329-J all have mentions in sources cited on this article that are equivalent to or more detailed than the mention of SCP-108, but are not in the list on this article.
   • Do you think all of these should be included? I think maybe some of them should, but DEFINITELY not all of them.
   • And if SCP-108 was part of that big list of "SCPs mentioned in sources that we cite, but aren't listed in our article", would you support including it?

I am not advocating for the addition of any of the SCPs I listed above to the list, but can see value in adding some of them to the list. I do not see value in having SCP-108 in the list and would like your opinion. (Alternatively, this may justify a stand-alone list, but I don't think it does.) casualdejekyll 21:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

As a not-much reader of SCP-stuff (I did read the IKEA and the bottomless stair), 108 meets the "someone independent bothered to mention it" criteria, but arguably not WP:PROPORTION per source given. I'm fine with removing it, we're meant to summarize, after all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, 108 is not particularly notable. Of the Series 1 skips, I'm surprised not to see 682 - which like 173, seems to have 'breached containment' and become well-known even to folks who haven't visited the site. Legowerewolf (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

682 is probably worth mentioning based on sheer popularity alone - if sources take note of it, of course. SCP-2316 in particular also stands out to me as worth including, because 1. we have nothing from its series and 2. [1] [2] [3]. And of course, to further my argument about 108, 2316 was merely the first SCP I bothered to search for sources about. If I went for it, I could probably find more examples with miles more coverage and notice by reliable sources than 108 has, further making its inclusion in our article seem pointless. casualdejekyll 19:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Changed to 166 :) Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not without an external source for 166. Reverted. DS (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

SCP-682 artwork

Some mention of it in current ref 9, better than 108 at least. If it's well known, you can probably find better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

OK now it has a external source Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Will Fandom work

technically it is not a wikidot but a wiki. :) 2601:846:600:22C0:3972:C017:2BEF:DE0B (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No. See WP:RS. DS (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I add th o5 council

Idk because of DS and his guide if it counts or not.Sorry I didnt know I wasn't supposed to do this aroundotherpeople 2601:846:600:22C0:7535:5321:E25B:3F01 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

oops that's me Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok now i think we have a reliable source and it is not a wikidot and has a popular SCP. NOW i think it is over (dont quote me on this) Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove SCP-1609?

The same reasons as 108. Sorry I didnt know I wasn't supposed to do this around other people 2601:846:600:22C0:7535:5321:E25B:3F01 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes but which one? Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry but which one will replace it? Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

IDK 3000 it is a cool eel long 900km eel. Sorry I didnt know I wasn't supposed to do this around other people2601:846:600:22C0:7535:5321:E25B:3F01 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

See ya at 4 eastern time

Sorry I didnt know I wasn't supposed to do this around 

other people 2601:846:600:22C0:7535:5321:E25B:3F01 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I got ride of that.... awful excuse for a SCP

Scp 108 is 8 now Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

plus with non wikidot sources Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully the great SCP Foundation disagreement of 2024 is over Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

008 a) has an external mention in the io9 article, and b) is boring. I recommend removing it. Any disagreements other than Dr Jackson? DS (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree to change how about...096? Sorry I didnt know I wasn't supposed to do this around multiple people 2601:846:600:22C0:7535:5321:E25B:3F01 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes 096 will work. Sorry I didnt know I wasn't supposed to do this around other people 2601:846:600:22C0:7535:5321:E25B:3F01 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah i say so Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Once you've openly said that the two accounts are both you, there's not much point in agreeing with yourself. Sockpuppetry can get you banned. Would you like to cross out the parts where you were pretending to be two people? DS (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Im sorry i didnt know i will delete them. (How do i cross out the parts? Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

To strike out text, surround it with <s></s>. You can include an edit summary of "I didn't know I wasn't supposed to pretend to be multiple people".

(Also, Followchain can't be used as a source, sorry.) DS (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

but chaotic envy said It would work but okay Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I fixed it Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Csn i use a youtube vid like scp 096 the shy guy SCP animation. Sorry this is Dr Jackson I forgot to log in 2601:846:600:22C0:411D:FED3:BFC7:D529 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

or a podcast like https://bloody-disgusting.com/podcasts/3558646/podcast-scp-archives-scp-096-contained-times/ Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

well I'm going to turn in for the night see ya at 7 eastern time (maybe idk my schedule) Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Even though I can't find any exact policy about it, based on my experience with sourcing, podcasts and YT videos are probably not going to be considered reliable. The barrier to publishing those is fairly low. And generally I think what exact SCPs make the list should be based on what's found in sources, rather than trying to find sources with certain ones. ― novov (t c) 03:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The policy would be WP:BLOG, see also WP:RSPYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

But seriously should we get rid of 1609?

it is just not as famous Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No. DS (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In context, the sourcing is good, so I see no reason to remove it. Also mentioned on Screenrant [4], which is not that great but acceptable-ish here, see WP:RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean it is not that famous and not that relevant Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"Famous" is subjective. "Relevant" is subjective. We have a source. DS (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove SCP Examples in general

As the SCP foundation's site is user generated, adding examples of SCPs (especially more unknown ones) could be self promotion. Computed (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Unknown by what metric? WP goes by coverage in independent WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say personally some of these SCPs are not the most reprentative of the SCP Foundation. The main focus of this topic was removing all the SCP examples. Computed (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is being promoted? DS (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

the SCP articles, as the SCP articles do count as work i think Computed (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That's... not how that works. DS (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

oops sorry Computed (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe tell readers what the heck an "SCP" is or don't do the article at all

Nowhere. That's where you define the acronym "SCP". That's basic 5th grade level writing. Maybe include what the name of the foundation actually is (not just the abbreviated name-which is what "SCP Foundation" is: the abbreviated name and don't just assume the reader is already knowledgeable about the foundation). You can't claim to be an informative piece of writing on the subject without it. I would do it... but, I only opened the page because I wanted to know what "SCP" stands for and this is the only Wikipedia artocle on the subject. Julezyj17 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"various paranormal, supernatural, and other mysterious phenomena unexplained by science (known as "anomalies" or "SCPs")" First paragraph, second sentence. " SCP officially stands for "Special Containment Procedures" in the organization's name; the organization also has the backronym motto "Secure, Contain, Protect".[4]" Footnote in the first sentence. What more do you want? DS (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)